Today Vectren learned that when people in southwestern Indiana speak up, the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission (IURC) will listen. Vectren was denied its rate increase in entirety. Last August I made a formal request on behalf of ratepayers to hold a town hall style meeting in Evansville to listen to complaints. That meeting was held. I was joined by Councilman John Friend in the effort. He speaks passionately about businesses trying to stay afloat in this economy and the added burden of yet another electric rate increase.
This would not have been possible without the support, encouragement and initiative of the City County Observer to step out and print the facts. I want to thank Councilman Friend, the City County Observer and the IURC for their leadership and commitment to listen to the people. A special thanks to the Citizens Action Coalition (WWW.citact.org) for their counsel to me and other Hoosiers striving for just, reasonable and affordable utitilies rates.
Gail Riecken
State Representative, D 77
***************************************************
The Facts:
Vectren filed for a rate increase for the installment of $32 million in dense pack technology to improve efficiency to two units at their A.B. Brown Generating Station. The Cause Number at the Commission was 44067. It was filed on September 13, 2011 and ruled on today. Vectren stated the estimated bill impact for a residential customer would have been $1.08 per month. Vectren was seeking this unjustified rate increase knowing they have the highest electricity rates in the state. On average, the average Indiana ratepayer pays $100 per 1000kwh of electricity used. In July of 2011, the average Vectren electric customer paid $155 per 1000kwh used. Vectren’s rates are up 62.8% or $59.85 for that amount of electricity over the last five years and up 109% or $80.91 over the last decade!
Adding insult to injury, the Commission denied this very request in Vectren’s last rate case. Instead, the IURC ordered Vectren to file for cost recovery AFTER the projects were completed and “report on the actual improvements achieved by the projects.†Yet Vectren come back to the Commission and ask again for approval.
Vectren does not know the actual cost of the project and refers to the $32 million in their testimony as the estimated cost. They stated in their testimony: “It must be emphasized that the actual impacts will depend upon the actual construction costs… as the Project proceeds.â€
Vectren wanted a guarantee they can recover all costs associated with the project and a rate of return (profit).
Vectren suggested that ratepayers will “see little to no rate impact†and promised that ratepayers will actually save money as a result of this project. The fact is the only guarantee that ratepayers get is that bills will increase to pay for the project. Promised savings are contingent upon the cost of coal, so if the price of coal goes up, which is likely, bills go up, regardless of this project.